Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Please Larian, Rewrite or Delete [ACT 3 SPOILERS] (very long with spoilers)

[quote=Dext. Paladin]

You said Sarevok was trying to be a good daddy's puppy. That has nothing to do with whether or not his attempts to NOT do that work. EDIT: And if the conclusion is 'problem solved if the changes were actually explained'...doesn't that just agree with the OP asking for a rewrite?

I disagree in the strongest terms with the premise of the opening post/thread title. Others have already more or less said what I would so I won't just keep arguing the same points, but I will say it comes off as very entitled to think reappearances MUST be a certain way because of how certain players played a past game in which what you want is only one of multiple possible outcomes. I fully acknowledge there are a couple small plot holes but as mentioned 100 years is a lot of time for things to change, especially in Faerun. I see no problem with their current characterizations and in Viconia's case in particular I actually like her better in BG3.

The funny thing is, they do not need to rewrite much. One way is to change the names and remove lines about those characters being Viconia and Sarevok. Another - they can be indeed imposters, or, better yet, assume the names in commemoration of the old characters (in a manner of "I take your name and every follower will think that you serve me").
I am sure there are dozens of other ways to do it without spending much money.

Echoing the criticisms already aired about Vic and Sarevok. But I'd like to point out that in some points Larian went out of their way to change the trajectory of the characters from their endings to make them...worse. I think it's already been pointed out how BG 3's backstory for vic twists her ending to make her more evil and fanatical than she originally was, recontextualizing the events to be less hopeful/tragic (viconia doesn't fit in with the evil wierdos that comprise the proper clergy of the church of Shar, they turned on her and so did Shar) and more 'jesus, this cultist is a real piece of work' (she murdered all of them, with emphasis that they were loyal and trusted her, because she's a blind fanatic who lives only to serve Shar)

Sarevok's background doesn't really line up with his endings at all, but seems to have been rewritten with the intention of just making him as one-dimensional and messed-up as possible. Complete with incest. Apparently that's a thing. It even overshadows the left-field nonsense of the other Throne of Bhaal characters returning as fanatical servants. (Sendai was eyebrow-raising, Amelyssan was full WTF)

You also have to look at how they are used in the game-what their purpose is. In Vic's case, she exist pretty much to serve the dual-purpose of cathartic release (by beating Shadowheart's abuser, much like Cazador with Asterion) and also of validating Shadowheart's 'specialness' Vic's new story is basically that her life's work basically been to raise Shadowheart to be Shar's chosen. Then disposed of (on the faithful Shadowheart route) or to otherwise be rendered insignificant by her defeat and Shadowheart sparing her as part of her 'healing' process (basically says she's nothing to her and to do what you want)

Sarevok serves a similar role, but to validate the specialness of Dark Urge and Orin. There's a lot of dialogue that pretty much spells out that he's a failure or otherwise in the shadow of his granddaughter and/or Durge. Durge is pretty much explicitly singled out as better than him, even in his own words. Basically a gatekeeper of sorts to exposit about how great Orin and Durge are compared to himself.

Of note, the only characters who know either of them personally have absolutely nothing good to say about either of them and are very happy if you kill them. Comparing them to SH and Durge in terms, again-to reinforce that the latter are special and the former are failures or otherwise 'fallen'. Even Minthara has nothing good to say about Vic despite being in almost the exact same boat.

Combined with how unpleasantly they are characterized in the game via their words and actions it seems clear to me that these aren't characters we are intended to *like*, or work with, but rather characters who we are supposed to feel disgust/anger/dislike towards and want to beat/kill/surpass and feel good about doing so. They are not character written with fanservice or their general popularity in mind, like with Minsc and Jaheria. Makes me really happy that the pre-release rumors of Lorroakan being Edwin turned out to be false (in the final release, at least) Having half of the evil party members from BG II+ToB being treated as such was bad enough.

I registered just to thank the OP.
As a player of BG2 who chose Viconia as my romance option,
I lay in bed crying for a whole morning after finishing ShadowHeart storyline of ACT III.
While the arrogance of Wizards of the Coast towards the video game characters is evident, this time it's really too much.

Included in my argument was: Whatever they stated motive, they're *unknowingly* did Bhaal's bidding.

Sure Sarevok can say he did it to please her cats, or want to replace Bhaal - do you think Bhaal will let him? The more he kills, the more Bhaal becomes stronger.

Sarevok may talk big and say he want to replace Bhaal but do you think without Charname interference, other Bhaalspawn would just... let him? When the entire point of their existence is to ensure Bhaal resurrection one way or another?

I don't think so.

So again, it was never about what the goal he stated, regardless of what he says, his action inevitably puppet-ed by Bhaal's will.

OP think character development in BG2 happened, I disagree (which is the problem with Canon in this type of storytelling).

More people should understand that if you need to handwave/assume/headcanon something to make it make sense, then you are saying it is poorly written, full stop. A good story explains itself.

Thanks for replying. I agree with what you said, the players do need cathartic release. What confused me is why they have to use old characters to be the punching bag? And they even went out of their way to do it, like you said. Do they hate players of the old games? (Is ths Last of Us Part II?) The villains we got were not well-written at all and literally could be replaced by anyone, any small clown characters. So why have to be them? I really don't understand.

Thank you, really, I hope you get better now ;D because I'm not lol

I think, you should consider Baldur's Gate 3 as continuation but of different timelines. Whatever idealized fate you think they should've ended up with, it's still exist, in some other universe, but not in this one.

This. Every universe built by a DM / writer / game developer / film director is unrelated to the others made by other people. Just stop trying to bring them together. BG1 and 2 had different writers and teams, basically different DMs. BG3 has its own universe and it has a lot in common with BG1 and 2 but it. is. not. the. same. universe. There are many choices to make in BG1 and 2 and all of them are canon in different universes.

What's next honestly, bringing in D&D Honor Among Thieves and saying that Bards should hit people with their lutes and can't cast spells?

The point is not this. Whatever playthrough you do in BG and BG2, there is no correlation with Viconia and Sarevok in BG3. The OP has clearly demonstrated with concrete data how the characters are completely different. The fact that they are characters we are fond of and used to seeing in a certain way only serves to make us more attentive to how they have been written by Larian.

I also believe that anyone who does not have a deep knowledge of the characters from BG and BG2 contributes little to the discussion.
In fact, taken stand-alone, Viconia and Sarevok in BG3 are decently written characters, and it is perfectly understandable that those who do not know them may have liked them. But the point of the OP is not that they are poorly written, but that they clash poorly with the old ones and completely neglect an important narrative arc, making them caricatures.

In light of all this, it is perfectly understandable to wonder if those who wrote these characters or this part of the plot really have the necessary knowledge to do them justice?

Meanwhile Sarevok and Viconia? They're bit players that don't matter to the story at all. If they were replaced, nothing would change and no emotional impact would be lost. I also don't buy the excuse that WOTC wanted them in. People seem too quick to lay the blame for this games flaws on them when there's no evidence they had any real input. This is just Larian not caring the way they cared about Jaheira and Minsc.

This. Every universe built by a DM / writer / game developer / film director is unrelated to the others made by other people. Just stop trying to bring them together. BG1 and 2 had different writers and teams, basically different DMs. BG3 has its own universe and it has a lot in common with BG1 and 2 but it. is. not. the. same. universe. There are many choices to make in BG1 and 2 and all of them are canon in different universes.

What's next honestly, bringing in D&D Honor Among Thieves and saying that Bards should hit people with their lutes and can't cast spells?

In fact, taken stand-alone, Viconia and Sarevok in BG3 are decently written characters.

My two cents as someone who didn’t play bg1 or 2, for me they were incredibly boring and forgettable characters in this game so honestly I think the rewrite was a negative for both old fans and new ones

Thanks Paladin


But we are literally talking about different things at this point. You're talking about Sarevok's actual influences and what other characters let or didn't let him do, I'm talking about his character and what a man he truly was. You're talking about what he did, I'm talking about what he wanted. Our topics become totally unrelated now so I guess we should end the discussion. But hey, thanks again for replying.